Economic Choice: What would YOU choose?

[ratan]

Okay here's a standard question:

Would you rather spend more money on EOS Bodies or on L Lenses?

For example: 

I would rather invest in L lenses rather than on a camera body. Why? Because L lenses are investments and I can use them in the long run. Bodies while in the other hand refresh quite often. I have tested a crop sensor camera with a L lens and a Fullframe with a crappy lens. Obviously the crop sensor with better lens has better image quality. 

For discussion sake please explain your answers so the community can understand your point of view better.

[SiriusPhotog]

I'm not so sure L Lenses are great investments as you say. I used to believe this when I was buying all my gear but then Canon started making "ver. II" models of all my lenses and now their resale value is in the toliet.

BTW - I've got the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm 2.8IS and the 100-400mm.

Of those lenses the 24-105 and 100-400 are the only ones that have not been "upgraded" but the rumor mill says the 100-400 is due for an update soon so once again I'll have a lens that drops in value.

Now I'm not really complaining that Canon is updating their lenses but it does sting a bit when they make a new version that stats show to be a good bit better then your current lens.

[jfo]

---

@SiriusPhotog wrote:

I'm not so sure L Lenses are great investments as you say. I used to believe this when I was buying all my gear but then Canon started making "ver. II" models of all my lenses and now their resale value is in the toliet.

---

I agree that lenses are far from investments in the financial sense: the price rarely increases (unless you buy a great deal or during a rare price drop).  In terms of economics, though, I think there is investment value in that you can produce great images for years and then re-sell for decent prices.  Relative to upgrades in technology and their effect on the life-cycle of camera bodies, lenses' value are a lot more stable.

---

@SiriusPhotog wrote:

BTW - I've got the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm 2.8IS and the 100-400mm.

Of those lenses the 24-105 and 100-400 are the only ones that have not been "upgraded" but the rumor mill says the 100-400 is due for an update soon so once again I'll have a lens that drops in value.

---

I'd hate to break it to you in case you didn't know, but Canon kinda upgraded the 24-105mm with a 24-70mm f/4 L IS .   It might or might not be a direct upgrade, but there's definitely a competing lens with comparable functionality.  

[SiriusPhotog]

I'm aware of the new 24-70mm f4 but I personally don't consider it a upgrade of the 24-105.
The only reason I purchased the 24-105 after I already owned the 24-70 was for the extra reach.
If I didn't own the 24-105 today I still would not consider buying the new 24-70 f4 as it doesn't solve my requirement.

[joshhuntnm]

I think glass makes more difference than body. I would get the L glass. 

Josh Hunt

www.joshhuntphotos.com

[jstntym]

I too will go with the glass. Most of my lenses if not all of them will move with me to my next camera body, whenever that may be. I mainly purchased them out of a specific need and use them for those purposes. If per chance I wasn't pleased with the particular copy or it just didn't work at the time for the type's of use I needed, it was sold. I have however repurchased a specific lens at a later date because my needs changed and found I'd get more use from it than previously. I'm happy with the newer camera bodies and the more useable AF systems. I did have the 1D X on a pre-order with One Call and by the time it finally arrived in their warehouses I had purchased the 5D MkIII with the similar AF system, almost identical. The 1D X US release kept getting pushed further out in time and though really interested in purchasing a 1-series body having never owned one before put it aside for now. I'm enjoying the 5D MkIII for now and working my way around the features, I like it! Having said this, I'll most likely skip this current 1D X body and opt for the next release in the future. Additionally it will afford me more time getting used to the newer AF system so when I do make that jump to the 1-series I'll have a better grasp of the features. I'm not pro, not even close, it's just a great retirement hobby that will keep me occupied for quite some time. I've yet to push out to wildlife or birding which would require different lenses and more $$. And though the body may change, my glass will move with me to the next, and I'm content with my current line-up. If anything, I'd most likely have purchased the newer 24-70 f/4 IS rather than the just recently released 24-70 f/2.8II but it didn't work out that way...no surprise there! I have a nice copy of the f/2.8II and will hold on to it. The upcoming f/4 sounds like a fine lens though..

[Jeffrey]

Get good lenses, they will serve you throughout numerous bodies.

Lenses are not investments, they are tools.  If you want to invest, buy real estate you will not live in or chance it in the stock market.  Remember, tools don't get obsolete because a newer version of the same item came out.  They will still produce the same fine images you were once thrilled with when you bought it.nThey may become obsolete when Canon changes the mount on new bodies.

[SiriusPhotog]

---

@Jeffrey wrote:

They may become obsolete when Canon changes the mount on new bodies.

---

Yeah, I'm just waiting for Canon to do this to us again......

That'll be the final straw for me. I had 10 or 11 FD lenses back in the day that I took a bath on when they switched over to the EOS mount.

[Jeffrey]

All camera manufacturers do this at long intervals.  Go ahead, switch to Nikon, and see when they 'Do this' to us.

[SiriusPhotog]

When Nikon switched over to an auto-focus system it didn't make their old lenses obsolete.